I struggle with this idea; the fact that many people do believe in some god. It is especially difficult for me to deal with the idea of people believing in a god that supposedly looks like a human, came to earth, performed a bunch of "miracles", died, came back to life, then ascended into the sky. It is personally especially difficult when the people who claim such beliefs are people I know to be thinking and logical. It seems truly unbelievable to me that they could look at the bible, which is well known to be nothing more than a fabrication, far after this god's supposed life and has been changed innumerable times throughout the centuries to suit whatever was necessary for control at the time. (See this article for reference: http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=9611 )

The concept of faith is extremely foreign to me. I have never, even at a very young age, been able to just accept something. When my mom would say this or that, I would have to know why, and then why was that, and that, on and on, back to the very essence of whatever it was. I am still this way. Not long ago, my bf and I got into a huge and very long discussion of radio waves. While I do know they exist (because I can experience them and because someone has actually produced them), I have great difficulty understanding them. Its very difficult to just accept the definition without needing to know more and more about the science and concepts behind it. We spent hours going back further and further in the science for me to understand how it works...my point is that I am not just a believer. I have to understand the process, the beginning, middle and end of everything. Otherwise I am riddled with questions and doubt and wonder.

I'll try to get back on track now.

So, it is something I feel compelled to ask people questions about, when they have faith in something that to me is completely and utterly fantasy. Mostly I never have a chance to question, because the people whom I am around aren't exactly interested in talking to me in any sort of conversational manner about religion. Mostly people just try to convert me, try to make me feel guilty (like somehow I am permanently damaging my son by not teaching him belief), try to manipulate me with emotions, etc. I've never been face to face with a believer that would even "discuss" the idea with me.

So, instead, I have the internet, where occasionally I can find someone who will discuss their beliefs with me. Mostly, I hypothesize and argue with myself, because I have no one to talk to, about how insane it is that people will base so much of their life on nothing. And now we are here, in this argument. The main thing I think is missing is that believers tend to be able to believe. I know that sounds nuts. But the thing is that non-believers aren't able to just "believe", generally there is something that must be experience and explained and provable for a non-believer to accept it. So debating without figuring out how to bridge that cap is going to be very difficult.

_________________You can sing the praises of women all day long, but as long as you put a fertilized egg ahead of [their] welfare, you do not really care about them.-Dori 4/07

I stated this before; It is an intensely personal experience that I make no claim of application beyond myself. Every individual needs to cover this path for themselves and trying to convert others or belittling differing beliefs is just plain rude.

In one post you claim to believe in empirical evidence, and here you claim the contrary.

Quote:

I'm very confused by this statement, just what were the two subjects? I believed were talking about the existence of God. One subject only.

The statement my qute was from was regarding the definition of atheist, and how not believe cant be a belief system because it doesnt claim anything.

My attacking the belief of others is separate from my atheism. Attacking the beliefs of others is not an inherent property of atheism.

Quote:

Specifically, what would be this next step? Observation 1: Bush lied to start an immoral and illegal preemptive war. Observation 2: Hundreds of thousands have died as a result. Conclusion: Bush is a war criminal.

Thing is, you missing SO much. Your train of logic doesnt follow the proper steps. Both observations require some proof, some real evidence. And it requires falsifiable evidence. (this correlated with bush telling saddam to PROVE he DOESNT have evidence, you cant prove you DONT have something))

Quote:

Scientists routinely stop at the observation step, when the observation is consistent with the hypothesis. Publishing results is NOT really part of the scientific method.

I would LOVE to see some evidence for this, because being a scientist my self I can assure you this is not the case. In science we try our hardest to DISPPROVE our hypothesis.

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE

Lefty - I tried to answer one of your questions, but I guess I took too long because when I asked to preview it, it was wiped out. It was long.

NYGG - Everyone only truly believes what they choose to believe concerning any issue that may come up. Who am I to tell you that you are wrong in what you choose to believe?

Lefty - I don't think it's not that people don't want to discuss religion. It is a very personal thing and a true Christian does not want to be guilty of misleading anyone with their own interpertation of the scriptures. A true and honest Christian will not spew his beliefs to the world, they don't have to. Let me be in the company of a so called Christian for a few minutes and I'll know if they are a Christian or a hypocrite. You can almost tell a Christian by their looks alone.

To understand the Bible, one has to study it and look for their own answers. It is all there.
What has ever been:
What is happening today:
What is yet to come. The Alpha and the Omega.

An amazing fact that can't be ignored - a lot of the signs spoken of in the Bible are all around us in our everyday lives. Is it just coincidence that so many men could fortell a future hundreds of years before they happen? I don't think so.

It can scare the living daylights out of a sinner or it can bore the impatient to tears. It all depends on just how bad the reader wants answers.

I don't believe the whole Bible is meant for any one person. When we seek an answer we will be led to the area that will give us our answers.

When I have a problen or want an answer to a question - I ask the Lords guidience. It works for me. Maybe it sounds crazy to most people who have never tried it.

I have more respect for a preacher who has been called to preach than an educated theologian. While getting educated they lose a lot of the true message and believe what their teachers interject into the lesson. It's called personal opinion or bulldung from one unable to comprehend.

When I ask a question, I have more respect for one who can say - I don't know the answer - than I do for one who takes me by way of New York to appease me. Since I swim like a rock I don't want to sink in dung no higher than my waist.

NYGG - Everyone only truly believes what they choose to believe concerning any issue that may come up. Who am I to tell you that you are wrong in what you choose to believe?

Because not all beliefs are created equal and deserve respect. Imagine if no one stood up to say racism was wrong.

Quote:

An amazing fact that can't be ignored - a lot of the signs spoken of in the Bible are all around us in our everyday lives. Is it just coincidence that so many men could fortell a future hundreds of years before they happen? I don't think so.

I challenge you to give me one prophecy that was properly filled.

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE

I could do some research but let me speak of one thing that is happening now. One we can all relate too.

The weather: In the Bible it speaks of being able to tell the seasons by the leaves on the trees.

Some say it's global warming - maybe part of it.

Some say the leaves are falling too soon because of the unseasonally dry weather - maybe part of it. Why in only certain parts of the world instead of everywhere?

How can man explain in some parts of America the rain is so heavy it's flooding everything, destroying homes, crops, and washing away roads?
But in realitively close neighborhoods it is so dry the crops are dying in the fields. Water is being rationed because there isn't enough to go around.

It may be so hot today we need air conditioning or fans to stay cool enough so as not to be overcome from heat exhaustion and tomorrow it may be so cold we could stay bundled in blankets. All this in the same localities.

Heat so severe in Ohio they cancelled school so the students would not suffer because they had no air conditioning. That never happened when I went to school and we never had any air conditioning or fans to keep us cool. To the best of my memory we never had any students who needed medical attention due to unseasonably high heat.

Am I making any sense to you? Can you give me some answers to explain the why's and wherefores? I'm willing to listen.

I could do some research but let me speak of one thing that is happening now. One we can all relate too.

The weather: In the Bible it speaks of being able to tell the seasons by the leaves on the trees.

What if the bible said that you could tell if its dayif the suns up. Thats not a prophecy, its just common knowledge.

Quote:

Some say it's global warming - maybe part of it.

Leaves change according to weather conditions.

Quote:

Some say the leaves are falling too soon because of the unseasonally dry weather - maybe part of it. Why in only certain parts of the world instead of everywhere?

Because some places are affected worse than others, and some plants are more drought tolerant than others.

Quote:

How can man explain in some parts of America the rain is so heavy it's flooding everything, destroying homes, crops, and washing away roads?But in realitively close neighborhoods it is so dry the crops are dying in the fields. Water is being rationed because there isn't enough to go around.

Global warming causes extremes on both ends.

Quote:

It may be so hot today we need air conditioning or fans to stay cool enough so as not to be overcome from heat exhaustion and tomorrow it may be so cold we could stay bundled in blankets. All this in the same localities.

I think this may be an exaggeration.

Quote:

Heat so severe in Ohio they cancelled school so the students would not suffer because they had no air conditioning. That never happened when I went to school and we never had any air conditioning or fans to keep us cool. To the best of my memory we never had any students who needed medical attention due to unseasonably high heat.

Theres always been hot weather, its just more frequent and a bit more extreme now, and im certain in ohio people have needed medical attention in the past.

Quote:

Am I making any sense to you? Can you give me some answers to explain the why's and wherefores? I'm willing to listen.

Global warming can cause all of this, and all events like these are predicted by the theory.

But im missing the link to religion.....?

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE

I stated this before; It is an intensely personal experience that I make no claim of application beyond myself. Every individual needs to cover this path for themselves and trying to convert others or belittling differing beliefs is just plain rude.

In one post you claim to believe in empirical evidence, and here you claim the contrary.

Simply put—I claim exactly the same thing in both posts.Here is the dictionary definition of empirical:

empirical (adj) derived solely from experience; Philosophy derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of logic

nygreenguy wrote:

Quote:

I'm very confused by this statement, just what were the two subjects? I believed were talking about the existence of God. One subject only.

The statement my qute was from was regarding the definition of atheist, and how not believe cant be a belief system because it doesnt claim anything.

My attacking the belief of others is separate from my atheism. Attacking the beliefs of others is not an inherent property of atheism.

Again to put it plainly—bullshit. It may not be inherent property of atheism BUT it is an inherent property of the atheism you practice. You would not attack theistic beliefs without your atheism.

nygreenguy wrote:

Quote:

Specifically, what would be this next step? Observation 1: Bush lied to start an immoral and illegal preemptive war. Observation 2: Hundreds of thousands have died as a result. Conclusion: Bush is a war criminal.

Thing is, you missing SO much. Your train of logic doesnt follow the proper steps. Both observations require some proof, some real evidence. And it requires falsifiable evidence. (this correlated with bush telling saddam to PROVE he DOESNT have evidence, you cant prove you DONT have something))

For the sake of brevity, I paraphrased the observation stages here, but both involved extensive research into the words and actions of the war criminal Bush. So no, I didn't miss anything. I have no desire to become like the citizens of Nazi Germany and remain silent and idle while war crimes are committed in my name and the name of my country.

nygreenguy wrote:

Quote:

Scientists routinely stop at the observation step, when the observation is consistent with the hypothesis. Publishing results is NOT really part of the scientific method.

I would LOVE to see some evidence for this, because being a scientist my self I can assure you this is not the case. In science we try our hardest to DISPPROVE our hypothesis.

Is it your claim that the scientific method provides no means to come to a conclusion? A never ending set of experiments? In the real world results on based on conclusions not an ambiguous someday. Your employers must have infinitely deep pockets if you are allowed to continue experiments with no end in sight.

_________________“I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat.”-Will Rogers

Simply put—I claim exactly the same thing in both posts.Here is the dictionary definition of empirical:

empirical (adj) derived solely from experience; Philosophy derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of logic

Thats very odd as every dictionary I read has a definition like this:

Quote:

# Originating in or based upon observation or experience; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

But if thats the definition you want to use, thats ok. But I dont that thats what most people think when they hear empirical. So you may want to always clarify that when you use the word.

nygreenguy wrote:

Quote:

I'm very confused by this statement, just what were the two subjects? I believed were talking about the existence of God. One subject only.

The statement my qute was from was regarding the definition of atheist, and how not believe cant be a belief system because it doesnt claim anything.

My attacking the belief of others is separate from my atheism. Attacking the beliefs of others is not an inherent property of atheism.

Quote:

Again to put it plainly—bullshit. It may not be inherent property of atheism BUT it is an inherent property of the atheism you practice. You would not attack theistic beliefs without your atheism.

I wouldnt be so sure. Attacking someone else's ideas doesnt necessairly mean that you even disagree. One can always play devils advocate.

However, since im an atheist i obviously dont find most argument for god persuasive, but without arguing how can I ever find one that is? (and vice verse for theists)

Quote:

Is it your claim that the scientific method provides no means to come to a conclusion? A never ending set of experiments? In the real world results on based on conclusions not an ambiguous someday. Your employers must have infinitely deep pockets if you are allowed to continue experiments with no end in sight.

Hmm.. this is hard to answer because i dont fully understand what you are talking about. However, most experiments lead to more experiments.

For example, I did research on the chemistry of human sweat. I was trying to see if the chemistry of male sweat had an effect on human individual distance. I had 2 hypotheses. My null was "The difference in human individual distance is no greater than do to chance alone" and my alternate was "Sweat significantly affect human individual distance in males(or females)".

So after all was said and done, there was a significant statistical result and I rejected my null for females. which allowed me to accept my alternate for females. However, all I had shown is that the difference is significant. I would have to do another test to show what specifically caused it. And that may even lead to another test, and another.

As for my males, I 'failed to reject my null' because no statistical difference was found. That could lead to an experiment of why if works on females and not males.

But if you look back, you will see that everything centered around me trying to show my results are not even valid.

But, as its often said, science provides more questions than it does answers.

But id still like you to address the :

Quote:

Scientists routinely stop at the observation step, when the observation is consistent with the hypothesis. Publishing results is NOT really part of the scientific method.

Both those statements.

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE

I believe in perpetual motion. Once you figure that out, all beliefs fall comfortably in place.

Think about what an atheist finds as moral guides and you see perpetual belief is constant. Accelerating belief means only falling into belief and acquired knowledge drags you further and faster into the miasma of understanding.

What it is you understand is part of the flow that was intended in the first place. So we return from whence we came.

Perpetual motion.

_________________Completely sane world
madness the only freedom

An ability to see both sides of a question
one of the marks of a mature mind

Can you supply any evidence to refute any of these fulfilled claims from the Bible?

The Bible has proven itself to be historically accurate - new findings verify the accuracy of the Bible.

The Bible has proven itself to be archaeologically accurate - no evidence has been unearthed that disproves the Bible's account of civilizations and cultures that have existed since the biginning.

The Bible has proven itself to be prophetically accurate - prophesies recorded have been fulfilled to the letter, centuries after being recorded. The major prophecy yet to be fulfilled is the return of Jesus Christ to establish His reign on earth and the establishing of the new heavens and the new earth (New Jerusalem).

Take off your rose colored glasses - look around and see if you are able to visulize some of the coming trials and tribulations we are bringing to fruitation in our generation.

Realize this, that in the last days - difficult times will come.
For men will be lovers of money,boastful, arrogant dissobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, malicious gossips, without self control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of good, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power. always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If anyone has watched television, read a newspaper, lost a retirement to corporate greed and corruption, or just walked outside their front door, how can they deny not seeing any of the above tributes to some they have encountered (strangers or family members)? It is obvious that many of these prophecies have been fulfilled by our genertation. Our leaders are often corrupt. Our cities are filled with crime, brutality and neon signs proclaimimg our sinful, godless natures.

The New Age Movement brings in increasing #'s of mystics who claim to be the enlightened ones. They are some of the most educated and influential people on our societies, and yet the most lacking in real truth.

Has the end of 6000 years of transgression been fulfilled or are we just close to its fulfillment?

A common therory held by many Christians and some Jewish Rabbis over 2000 years ago - God allocated one week of seven 1000 year days for a total of 7000 years for sin to run its course.
Revelation indicates the seventh 1000 year period is the millenium during which time the earth will lie desolate (See Isaiah 20).

Man was created a little longer than 6000 years ago - however Adam may have lived several years before he and Eve sinned. Approx. when Adam sinned, this started the 6000 years allocated for transgression to exist.

A very tight range would have it end around 2005 AD.

The Aztec and Mayan calendars point to a 6000 year in the year 2012.

If the Jewish calendar is corrected for various errors, it also reaches the tear 6000 by the year 2015.

The span of 2005 AD to 2015 AD. Could science be in error? Has our time run out or are we dangerously close to all the trials and tribulations prophsiesed in the book of Revolations coming to fruitation?

Can you supply any evidence to refute any of these fulfilled claims from the Bible?

Name some actual claims and I will.

Quote:

The Bible has proven itself to be historically accurate - new findings verify the accuracy of the Bible.

Proof?

Quote:

The Bible has proven itself to be archaeologically accurate - no evidence has been unearthed that disproves the Bible's account of civilizations and cultures that have existed since the biginning.

Firstly, this is irrelevant. Anyone can record observations.

As for archeology...

Quote:

Eze. 29: 1-19, "In the tenth year ... the word of the Lord came upon me saying, 2 'son of man, set your face against Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against Egypt ... 9 and the land of Egypt will become a desolation and waste. Then they will know that I am the Lord ... 11 ... and it will not be inhabited for forty years. 12 So I shall make the land of Egypt a desolation in the midst of cities that are laid waste, will be desolate for forty years, and I shall scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands ... 15 It will be the lowest of the kingdoms; and it will never again lift itself up above the nations' ... 19 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, 'Behold, I shall give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. And he will carry off her wealth, and capture her spoil, and seize her plunder; and it will be wages for his army.'"

Pretty much nothing in this verse came true. So, its factually incorrect and it didnt prophecize rightly either.

Quote:

The Bible has proven itself to be prophetically accurate - prophesies recorded have been fulfilled to the letter, centuries after being recorded. The major prophecy yet to be fulfilled is the return of Jesus Christ to establish His reign on earth and the establishing of the new heavens and the new earth (New Jerusalem).

I wouldnt hold my breath on the jesus one.....

And what prophecies?

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE

Has the end of 6000 years of transgression been fulfilled or are we just close to its fulfillment?

6000 years? Why such an arbitrary number?

Quote:

A common therory held by many Christians and some Jewish Rabbis over 2000 years ago - God allocated one week of seven 1000 year days for a total of 7000 years for sin to run its course.Revelation indicates the seventh 1000 year period is the millenium during which time the earth will lie desolate (See Isaiah 20).

People have been around for tens, hundereds of thousands of years.

Were they prefect up until the last 7000?

Quote:

Man was created a little longer than 6000 years ago - however Adam may have lived several years before he and Eve sinned. Approx. when Adam sinned, this started the 6000 years allocated for transgression to exist.

This is just incorrect.

Quote:

The Aztec and Mayan calendars point to a 6000 year in the year 2012.

If the Jewish calendar is corrected for various errors, it also reaches the tear 6000 by the year 2015.

The span of 2005 AD to 2015 AD. Could science be in error? Has our time run out or are we dangerously close to all the trials and tribulations prophsiesed in the book of Revolations coming to fruitation?

No, no and no.

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE